Does anyone NOT like Diva?

[whyterabbyt]

But my argument is that by selling a product at a lower price, you will sell more, thus making just as much money, but making the product accessible to more people.

Y'know, in ten years at KVR, I think you're the first guy to ever suggest that. Why in the entire history of economics has noone ever pointed out that sales is irrefutably directly inversely proportional to price?

Y'know if he sold it for 1c a copy, I bet he'd get 200,000 times as many buyers... and still make the same money...

[standalone]

Does anyone have any other complaints?

Well, I think it is too expensive.

Lower the price to €49, and one could probably sell 4 times as many products, making just as much money, but making it accessible to a lot more people.

With regard to the flaw in this argument, Urs says it better than me.
Read here in this other recent DIVA thread (Urs' reply, 3rd from bottom of page):
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4904237

"I otoh can't afford to sell her cheaper. I'd need more sales to pay for employees, rent, advertisement, insurances and whatever else is needed to run u-he. Berlin is infamous for its "cheapness", but it ain't free either. More sales would be okay per se, but we've reached a state where the little we have in support is already at the cost of about 1 employee. But to afford yet another employee would require even more sales. It's frightening."

I fully understand that the producer must cover his costs, and also would like to make a good living out of his craft.

But my argument is that by selling a product at a lower price, you will sell more, thus making just as much money, but making the product accessible to more people.

Why are for instance so many synths over at Apples appstore priced so low in comparison with the Windows platform?

Excuse me but, have you read what you are quoting? With more customers support costs go up exponentially. What you suggest is very dangerous for any small developer. The cheaper a piece of software is, the percentage of less tech-savy buyers raises and support for that product begins to be a nightmare.

[braj]

It also assumes a bigger market than may actually exist.

[KBSoundSmith]

Does anyone have any other complaints?

Well, I think it is too expensive.

Lower the price to €49, and one could probably sell 4 times as many products, making just as much money, but making it accessible to a lot more people.

With regard to the flaw in this argument, Urs says it better than me.
Read here in this other recent DIVA thread (Urs' reply, 3rd from bottom of page):
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4904237

"I otoh can't afford to sell her cheaper. I'd need more sales to pay for employees, rent, advertisement, insurances and whatever else is needed to run u-he. Berlin is infamous for its "cheapness", but it ain't free either. More sales would be okay per se, but we've reached a state where the little we have in support is already at the cost of about 1 employee. But to afford yet another employee would require even more sales. It's frightening."

I fully understand that the producer must cover his costs, and also would like to make a good living out of his craft.

But my argument is that by selling a product at a lower price, you will sell more, thus making just as much money, but making the product accessible to more people.

Why are for instance so many synths over at Apples appstore priced so low in comparison with the Windows platform?

The Apple appstore? I'm sorry, but to be frank, the app store is a toy store, not a hardware store/business supplier. Apps may be great, and sometimes even useful, but compared to a full blown product like Diva, you're not even coming close to the same development time and costs. Apps often times are, in my opinion, simple afterthoughts with nips and tucks.

Think of of what u-he had to do in order to make Diva what it is: resources in time and money to purchase and analyze expensive analog hardware, modelling the circuitry in software, debugging and optimization, as well as probably hundreds of other things I'm too lazy to try to think of at the moment. Now add the cost of doing business (rent, payrole, etc) to research and development costs, as well as REALISTIC projections as to how many copies you may sell/must sell in your market, you have the reality that as a developer, you can't charge whatever you want; there is a bottom line that you MUST charge.

I like the idea of products being cheaper too. But I better like the reality of businesses being able to stay open.

[Numanoid]

This comment is not so much about Diva, but software products in general, posting it here as the discussion was started here.

One thing I remember Dave Smith saying about producing synths in the early 80's was that he wanted to go over to software where possible as that was a one time investment, while parts needed to be bought for each synth his company made, software could be duplicated once finished.

When it comes to VST synths I expect that most of the costs lies in development, when the products is finished coding one sells duplicates of the same file, no need to cover costs for mechanical parts for each product sold.

So at least when, or if, a product has sold enough to cover the costs and overhead the producer has had, that producer could think about lowering the price of the product, making it accessible also to hobbyist musicians like myself.

What I don't quite understand is for instance why Sylenth1 is still selling for full price, nearly 6 years after it was launched?

[braj]

There is so much involved in pricing a product. Past sales fund new development, the materials are just part of the costs, and the market can be pretty saturated already by the time a new product comes out. Competition from others may undercut whatever new features you have spent your bankroll to develop too. Not all development activity results in marketable products, and not all marketable products are sales successes. I trust that Urs has thought this through enough to give Diva as competitive price as he could, he mentioned somewhere that he doesn't drive a Ferrari

[zvenx]

Unless a synth is discarded or end of line why must it necessarily lose its original value?
I don't think any developer is rich or wealthy off of development alone, but I am pretty sure they aren't just doing it to cover cost etc......and then some users who buy it for the higher price will be pissed when it is sold at a lower price.

Quite frankly, and like you this is about software products in general.... with all the advantages that come with software synths, one of the cons is some people have a sense of entitlement with it.....sure if you want to buy it second hand then do so...but why must I have the right to try to dictate to the developer what he/she should sell it for..... it is either worth it for me or it isn't...if it isn't I have choices.... but in no way do I think the developer owes me to make it cheaper so that I can purchase it......
Back in the days of hardware when synth prices could vary from $1,000 to $250,000 there was no doubt that the top of the line synth wasn't made with the hobbyist in mind....why should the top of the line software synth be any different?

rsp

[Urs]

We are 4 lads doing a lot of customer support each, with the few sales we have. If we priced Diva at a third, we would need triple the sales for same revenue that feeds 4 people. But then we would need 12 lads to do the support.

Ok, not everyone does only support at any given time, but projection is, more sales for less would kill us. I think for a third of the price we would need to sell at least 5-8 times the units, which is about the region NI might do (which has become a hardware company).

[braj]

I also have a hard time affording even $100 synths all in one go, so I totally relate with wanting a lower cost option, but from my perspective Diva is a pro product and I have to expect it will be priced accordingly. U-he is really generous in giving ZebraCM, Zebralette, and Tyrell away for free, if I factor all that in U-he really does a great deal to make quality products available to hobbyists. But it even costs something to do that.

[Numanoid]

Unless a synth is discarded or end of line why must it necessarily lose its original value?

That is another thing about VST synths.

You can't sell on a software product like you would a hardware product, often you have to pay a fee to deregister your product to be able to transfer it to another user.

[Urs]

Unless a synth is discarded or end of line why must it necessarily lose its original value?

That is another thing about VST synths.

You can't sell on a software product like you would a hardware product, often you have to pay a fee to deregister your product to be able to transfer it to another user.

See, recently someone told me he was grateful that we don't do sales, discounts or "price adjustments". Our products have a stable resell value, and they all sell *fast*.

Reselling is free, however only after 9 months of license ownership.

[LeVzi]

I think the reason Sylenth is still the same price now as it was a while ago is due to the fact it still sounds every bit as incredible.

[Numanoid]

See, recently someone told me he was grateful that we don't do sales, discounts or "price adjustments". Our products have a stable resell value, and they all sell *fast*.

Reselling is free, however only after 9 months of license ownership.

Well, it's quite a different thing when you want to buy and when you have bought

But I understand that point. Had I been a professional musician and bought a top of the line product, I would want a product that not everybody has access to, otherwise my productions could get lost in the crowd.

What do you think about the way Synthmaster do their business, they offer reduced price for certain customer groups, like students for instance?

[zvenx]

you actually bring up an interesting point...

Btw, I make 99% of my income from music, and I have heard some people with that argument, that they want toys that not everyone has access to... I am not from that camp..... I would like to think I please my customers with creativity vs. solely the toys I use (clearly the toys are a part of it)....

But you bring up synthmaster.....now I think I paid $59 and I always always go to my other synths first, I think mainly because my perceived value of synthmaster is $59 so it isn't as good as my higher priced toys..now clearly there is lots of flaws in such an argument and it probably is just as good as the others...but I think its price and therefore for me its psychological perceived value has a lot to do with why it isn't one of my first call synths.

rsp

[bmrzycki]

Had I been a professional musician and bought a top of the line product, I would want a product that not everybody has access to, otherwise my productions could get lost in the crowd.

This makes absolutely no sense. It's not the gear that makes the music, it's the people behind the gear that do. Sure, good gear can help but it isn't what gets you "lost in the crowd". Having little to no vision, talent, or dedication is what keeps you there.

You can make downright amazing music with Synth1 and LMMS on Windows (it's a bit tougher on Mac to find a free DAW).

Do you haggle with your local grocer over the price of milk? When you buy clothes or furniture do you expect a student discount at the checkout line?

If Diva means that much to you, save up and purchase it. It's worth every penny and keeps u-he supporting it, enhancing it, and making new products too. I purchased Zebra2 in 2006 and every update since then has been free. That's 6 years of bugfixes, audio enhancements, sounds from Howard, and general support. I also got a really great sounding synth too.

Before you say something is "too expensive" ask yourself how much it costs to have a relatively comfortable existence in the western world. If I were selling Diva I'd have to sell several copies every month just to pay my mortgage.